The end is near for 35mm? Or is it? When is the end?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by j, Sep 30, 2006.

  1. You've said that before, but you've missed the point. See the "Art" bit in
    "Glasgow College of Art"? I'd guess they take art fairly seriously there.
    And it turns out that there's still a lot of art photography done with
    medium and large format. You can see some of that world at LensWork.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. j

    JohnR66 Guest

    I'm thinking of some of the large "cameras for the masses" companies such as
    Canon who pulled the plug on 35mm. Nikon, wasn't so quick to leave film by
    introducing an upgraded F100 and calling it an F6.

    I see more signs of it fading every so often. I noticed that many stores
    carry nothing slower than ISO 400 film now. I used to buy 100 or 200 speed
    film and over expose it by a stop for better contrast. ISO 400 on about any
    DSLR is way better than film if you want minimal grain.

    Oh well, It's been 2-1/2 years since I made an exposure on 35mm. It is dead
    as far as I'm concerned.
    JohnR66, Oct 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Can you spell t.r.o.l.l.?

    Car craze (actually was thought to be that, long before anyone here was
    around). Cell phone craze. Probably Talking Movies, and record players,

    As to microwaves, tho, mine is used only for reheating, and mostly
    coffee. The thought of actually cooking in it lost its appeal years ago.
    John McWilliams, Oct 1, 2006
  4. That is like saying digital photography is not "serious" photography.
    Dennis Pogson, Oct 1, 2006
  5. j

    John Bean Guest

    No it's not. It's saying that digital hasn't become
    sufficiently usable or affordable as a replacement for film
    in certain areas of photography.
    John Bean, Oct 1, 2006
  6. j

    Bill Funk Guest

    Art is different from taking photographs.
    Does the Art college teach Art, or taking photographs? They aren't the
    same thing.
    In the US, yes, universities qare often out of touch with everyday
    Those Leicas are the end result of over a century of development of
    cameras; digital hasn't been around anywhere near that long.
    Nikon lenses are selling at "rediculous" prices? Where?
    See above; digital technology has a long way to go before it reaches
    the maturity film reached a long time ago.
    And film photographers used to buy SLRs at a pretty good clip, too, as
    the technology matured.
    Weren't you there then?
    Bill Funk, Oct 1, 2006
  7. j

    Annika1980 Guest

    They teach the old ways because that's all they know. Also, it is what
    they're equipped for. Switching to digital would cost $$$. And to
    teach digital they'd first have to learn it so they would go from being
    the teacher to being a student. They know that the money is in the

    Personally, I would question the usefulness of a 4-year degree course
    that hasn't mentioned digital in 3 years. Or perhaps they'll start the
    fourth year by saying, "OK, forget all that other stuff...."

    I'm sure that in 3 years your granddaughter has learned a great deal
    about photography, lighting, exposure, etc. But I fear she will be
    blissfully ignorant of the current tools and methods used to capture
    the images. So far, her class should be called "The History of
    Photography." What does she intend to do when she graduates? Being
    ignorant of digital puts her at a serious disadvantage when trying to
    compete with folks who know about the modern processes. Certainly, if
    she intends to earn money through her photography she is in for a long
    Annika1980, Oct 1, 2006
  8. j

    ASAAR Guest

    At that rate, in ten years you'll have bought two dozen digital
    cameras. How many film cameras will you have added? Your answer
    misses the point of the OP's question. It's not how long an old,
    individual, well built camera will last, but rather, will the photo
    industry continue producing products (35mm film and cameras) that
    are no longer purchased? Having used digital cameras for six years,
    I'm now on my third. None of them ever broke down or became erratic
    or started producing lower quality images. If any of your older
    digital cameras are doorstops, is it because they don't work as well
    as they once did, or because you felt compelled to buy newer models
    that produced better images or added convenience or functionality?
    That you're buying so many digital cameras provides hints that your
    Nikon F3 and Leica 3g have effectively become doorstops, even if
    they still work well.

    How often do you use these two film cameras compared to your
    digital cameras? If the answer is "not very much", then you can't
    really blame the photo industry for the less rugged, flimsier
    cameras they're producing. In their day the F3 and 3g were not
    considered to be low end, inexpensive disposable cameras. Nikon and
    Canon produced more than their share of those and still do. If you
    get a top of the line digital camera from Nikon, Canon or even
    Leica, it'll be a well made, durable camera that'll probably give up
    little in terms of longevity to the F3s and 3gs. The primary reason
    for upgrading or replacing any of these top of the line digitals
    would not be because they broke down due to flimsy construction. It
    would be because you either really *need* the new features and
    functionality of the newer cameras, or more likely, because
    consumers must follow their lemming-like imperative to *buy*. :)
    ASAAR, Oct 1, 2006
  9. j

    AZ Nomad Guest

    Reminds me of a high school science class in 1978 where we were using
    slide-rulers even though calculators had been out for nearly a decade
    and scientific functions were beginning to appear on cheap calculators.
    AZ Nomad, Oct 1, 2006
  10. Not at all. It's just to point out that digital is not all there is to
    photography. Open your mind and learn.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 1, 2006
  11. They teach "the old ways" because (a) people are still doing it, and (b) the
    vast majority of the great art that's been created photographically was
    created with film.
    She won't be getting a "photography" degree, she'll be getting an art
    degree that happens to focus on photography as the medium.

    People with art degrees do a variety of things, not only being artists but
    being museum curators, critics, or art dealers.

    None of which has any need of digital photography.
    If she knows her stuff about art, she has no need to worry about people who
    think that a particular technology has anything to do with art...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 1, 2006
  12. If they had any sense, they'd still teach how to use a slide rule. One of
    the most important concepts in both science and engineering is getting a
    feel for the problem so that one knows what the order of magnitude of the
    answer is and what the first digit probably is. Teaching that is incredibly
    hard with calculators. (Of course, I bought an HP-35 the instant it came

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 1, 2006
  13. j

    Scott W Guest

    The signs are all around, but many ignore them.

    One of the biggest signs is that it is very rare to see anyone using a
    film SLR anymore. I see a lot of digital SLRs being used but in the
    last year I only remember seeing on person using a film SLR. The
    people that I do see using film are mostly using those disposable
    cameras or cheap point and shoot film cameras.

    Just a few years ago there out Costco had a very large selection of
    film SLR cameras and only a few digital cameras, now they have no film
    SLRs and only a couple of cheap point and shoot film cameras, but a
    huge selection of digital cameras including DSLRs.

    The one pro film lab in our town went out of business.

    Now days when you show people prints they don't ask if they are from
    a digital camera, they just assume that they are.

    According to National Geographic's "Guide to Digital Photography"
    issue in July, more than half of the photos taken in the last 12 issues
    of National Geographic magazine were made with digital cameras.

    And then there is this report which looks like film is continuing to
    surprise people on how fast it is dying.

    Scott W, Oct 1, 2006
  14. j

    Roy Smith Guest

    Don't forget popcorn.

    And ice cream. Take a pint of ice cream out of the freezer and it's too
    hard to scoop. 5 seconds in the microwave and it's still completely
    frozen, but just soft enough to get a scoop in it -- perfect!

    At the low-end consumer level (for snapshots of family gatherings and
    vacations), digital has already won. Best Buy has a Fuji 5 Mpixel 3x zoom
    on sale for $117 on their web site right now. You probably can't shoot and
    print a dozen rolls of film for that price, let alone the convenience and
    instant gratification factor.

    For photojournalism, where speed is of the essence, digital has won. Even
    the most mediocre quality is good enough for newsprint. And the pro gear
    available today is good enough for glossy magazines that pride themselves
    on their photography (like Sports Illustrated).

    For technical photography, digital has also won. If you're recording the
    result of an experiment in a lab, a medical procedure, an accident
    investigation, a crime scene, a manufacturing process, etc, the
    convenience, reliability, and instant feedback of digital is the
    over-riding factor. When's the last time you had a picture taken for a
    photo ID that wasn't digital?

    So, what's left? Basicly, art. For people who are really into art, medium
    and large format will continue to fill the niche they fill now. I suppose
    there will still be a group of people for whom the quality of digital isn't
    good enough, but can't justify the expense, weight, and bulk of 220 or
    bigger. For them, there will still be 35mm. But it is quickly becoming a
    niche market too.
    Roy Smith, Oct 1, 2006
  15. j

    Scott Speck Guest

    Hey, I shoot 95% of my pictures with a dslr, but I recently got a Zero 2000
    camera, and I'm shooting Ilford PanF-50 b/w with it. It's loads of fun, and
    I also
    recently bought a used 4x5 and a good film scanner (that I can use to scan
    drawings, too). So I plan on having fun taking pinhole and 4x5 landscapes,
    all the
    while I'm still taking 95% of my pics with my dslr. For me, part of the fun
    is the
    process, not just the final picture. And there IS an interesting suspense
    in wondering
    what the HECK that pinhole shot will look like once it's developed,
    especially since
    I just point the thing in what I THINK is the right direction. :) Perhaps
    I like working
    both ends of the spectrum, from completely manual/primitive to incredibly
    quick-turnaround (my p/s Panasonic FZ30 digital). I just hope there's still
    4x5 and 120
    film around for the next 20 years or so, so I can still "dink" around with
    my film
    cameras. And who knows where digital will take us, with dynamic
    ISO detectors, to the Foveon technology (multiple layered detectors),
    detectors, CMOS sensors, and many other exciting technologies. While we're
    film versus CCD's, someone might invent a sensor tomorrow that in 10 years
    will make
    ALL our current gear obsolete. Never say never! :)

    Scott Speck, Oct 1, 2006
  16. j

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Was at the mall yesterday. Saw all sorts of digital watches.
    More analog ones, sure, but the digitals still exist.

    - ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Oct 1, 2006
  17. j

    Paul J Gans Guest

    You've made some good points.

    But I take a different view. Some changes are evolutionary.
    Large format film and 35mm film shared many of the same
    characteristics, even if they were not quite the same.

    Digital is not at all the same as film. Techniques are
    different, results are different, and the way one works
    in each is different.

    So I'd think that digital and film are related but different

    On the other hand, I *do* think that many schools are behind
    the curve. Film is an old and fairly well understood medium.
    Digital is still evolving. There is nothing like Ansel Adams's
    books for digital -- yet.

    ----- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Oct 1, 2006
  18. j

    Prometheus Guest

    They have probably only just caught up with dry plates and the
    new-fangled faddish roll film, my electronics course barely got in to
    transistors when I was using ICs at home. More seriously, the
    chemical/electronic process is secondary to creative art which I would
    expect to benefit from large format where digital is not yet viable.
    Prometheus, Oct 1, 2006
  19. j

    Paul J Gans Guest

    And it is saying that digital is somewhat different than

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Oct 1, 2006
  20. j

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Exactly. Which is why I say that film and digital are not
    exactly the same thing -- just as a slide rule and a calculator
    are not quite the same thing.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Oct 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.